Chapter 6
Original Sin
THE doctrine of original sin has influenced the
teachings of Roman Catholicism more than any other concept. In introducing
this false doctrine into the Christian church, Augustine, the bishop of
Hippo, declared that a baby, from the moment of conception, is guilty of
the original sin of Adam. This guilt at conception merits eternal torment
in hell for that child. Augustine, borrowing from pagan doctrine, asserted
that "baptism" alone purified an infant from original sin; thus
God was represented as an unjust monster who torments those to whom He has
given life, if their parents carelessly omit to have them sprinkled. This
damnable doctrine specifically challenges the plain words of Scripture.
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not
bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him,
and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)
No one is punished for the sins of his father; yet,
despite the contrary testimony of Scripture, some popes made even more
absurd pronouncements.
Innocent I (401–417) wrote to the Council of Milevis
and Galasius I (492–496) wrote to the bishops of Picenum that babies
were obliged to receive communion. If they died baptized but
uncommunicated, they would go straight to hell. (Peter de Rosa, Vicars
of Christ, p. 289)
The concept that babies who had died before receiving
communion were in hell was finally rejected by the Council of Trent in the
sixteenth century; however, the concept of eternal torment for babies is
still held.
The doctrine of original sin has popularized the false
form of baptism that sprinkles infants with water. Sprinkling eventually
led the vast majority of Christians to forsake the biblical doctrine of
adult (believer) baptism which is performed by full immersion. Pope
Gregory believed Augustine’s error.
Gregory the Great said that unbaptized babies go
straight to hell, and suffer there for eternity. (de Rosa, p. 289)
Catholics faced heavy strains upon the marriage
relationship, as ordained of God, when they accepted the view (prevalent
in some pagan societies) that sexual relation in marriage is sinful.
Prelates were always ready to defend it even when attempts were made to
demonstrate the inconsistency of the doctrine of original sin.
Gregory [the Great] was not blind to the problem this
[doctrine of original sin] raised. For example, parents were cleansed from
original sin in baptism. How could they hand down original sin to their
babies? He answers: Though holy themselves, they handed down corrupt
nature through sex, desire galvanized by lust. Babies are born as the
damned fruit of the lust of their redeemed parents. From the first, they
are the offspring of Gehenna, or Hell; they are just children of wrath
because they are sinners. If they die unbaptized, they are condemned to
everlasting torment for the guilt of their birth alone. Existence is
itself a state of sin; to be born is to qualify for eternal punishment.
(de Rosa, p. 452)
Another inconsistency concerned the incarnation of
Christ. He certainly did not possess a nature contaminated by original
sin. Since He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, it was asserted that He
was free of original sin because no sex was involved. But, in order to
distance Jesus further from original sin, the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception of Mary was fabricated. Mary was also stated to be born of a
virgin and conceived of the Holy Spirit.
Until the twelfth century, Christians took it for
granted that Mary was conceived in original sin. Pope Gregory the Great
emphatically said that "Christ alone was conceived without sin."
Again and again, he said all human beings are sinful, even the holiest,
with the sole exception of Christ. His reasoning and that of all the
Fathers leaves no doubt in the matter. The sex act always involved
sin. Mary was conceived normally, therefore in sin; Jesus was
conceived virginally, therefore without original sin. . . . The
cult of the virgin developed apace in the Middle Ages. Catholics tended to
lose sight of the humanness of Christ [because of the false view that His
human nature differed from ours]; as a result, He appeared remote, not so
much the Mediator between God and men as God Himself. This created the
need for a mediator with the Mediator, someone holy and powerful. The rise
of Mariology coincided with the decline of Christology. (de Rosa, pp. 332,
333)
Unfortunately, the doctrine that Christ’s human
nature differed from ours led to loss of faith in His mediatorial work in
behalf of mankind.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 2:5)
The reason that Christ’s mediatorial role has been
usurped by priests and saints is that the doctrine of original sin has
removed Christ as our High Priest and replaced Him with human priests.
Jesus’ qualification as our High Priest depends upon His possession of
our nature.
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but
he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him
to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and
faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation
for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being
tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:16–18)
Christ was made like His brethren in all things.
By postulating the notion that Christ was made different from mankind, the
Roman Catholic Church deprived Christ of His right to be our High Priest.
No man is born with original sin, but all are born with sin-weakened
natures. Christ was also born with a sin-weakened nature, as Scripture
testifies.
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was
made of the seed of David according to the flesh. (Romans 1:3)
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak
through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. (Romans 8:3)
Christ could not have been tempted as we are if He
possessed a human nature different from ours. He assures us that He indeed
understands our human feelings and infirmities because, as a man, He was
tempted as we are; yet He did not sin.
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched
with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like
as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)
The doctrine of original sin also led to the
declaration that those who had never heard the gospel would all perish in
eternal hell.
It is not as if pontiffs and Fathers said that they did
not know how babies were saved; they categorically said it was impossible.
They did not plead ignorance of the fate of the mass of mankind who had
never heard of Christ; instead, they affirmed, without qualification, that
they all went to hell. There was no salvation outside the church (by the
church, they meant the Catholic Church wherein entry was gained only
by baptism of water). These views were repeated century after century
without one dissenting voice. It was Catholic teaching, taught always,
everywhere by everyone. We noticed that when Francis Xavier went to the
Indies he was certain that unbaptized pagans, however virtuous,
could not get to heaven. (de Rosa, p. 460)
Notice what the Scriptures quote Jesus as saying
concerning this issue:
If ye were blind, ye should have no sin. (John 9:41)
When Paul spoke on Mars Hill, in Athens, Greece, he
referred to the former ignorance of the Greeks in matters that pertained
to the gospel.
And the times of this ignorance God winked at. (Acts
17:30)
Paul also revealed God’s attitude toward all people
and their relationship to His law, in his epistle to the believers in
Rome.
For there is no respect of persons with God. For as
many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many
as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (for not the hearers
of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be
justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the
things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto
themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their
consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while
accusing or else excusing one another;) in the day when God shall judge
the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
(Romans 2:11–16)
Those who are ignorant of the gospel message are judged
according to their response to the minimal light they possess. Some will
obtain eternal life. Jesus died for the salvation of the whole world. He
does not want anyone to perish even though some souls will choose to
disobey the light that they have received and will perish.
The Lord . . . is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing
that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2
Peter 3:9)
The doctrine of original sin, a doctrine not found
anywhere in Scripture, has been the mother of the vilest doctrines ever to
enter the Christian church. These vile and unscriptural doctrines are, the
eternal torment of unbaptized babies; the concept of limbo (created in
order to soften this first doctrine of eternal torment of unbaptized
babies); the sinfulness of the sexual relationship in marriage; the
Immaculate Conception of Mary; the denial of the true human nature of
Jesus; the acceptance of confession to priests; the denial of Christ’s
mediatorial and High Priestly ministry; the ritual of infant baptism; and
the notion that those who have never heard the Christian message are, by
that fact alone, excluded from eternal life.
Perhaps W.E.H. Lecky most elegantly sums up the
foundation of the doctrine of original sin in his book, History of
European Morals, as quoted by Peter de Rosa, in his comments upon the
"fate" of unbaptized babies (assumed to have died while still in
possession of original sin).
That a little child who lives but a few minutes after
birth and dies before it has been sprinkled with the sacred water is, in
such a sense, responsible for its ancestor having six thousand years
before eaten a forbidden fruit; that it may, with perfect justice, be
resuscitated and cast into the abyss of eternal fire in expiation of this
ancestral crime; that an all-righteous and merciful Creator, in the full
exercise of these attributes, deliberately calls into existence sentient
beings whom he had, from eternity, irrevocably destined to endure
unspeakable, unmitigated torture are propositions which are at once so
extravagantly absurd and so ineffably atrocious that their adoption might
well lead men to doubt the universality of moral perception. Such teaching
is, in fact, simply demonism, and demonism in its most extreme form.
(Quoted in Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ, p. 461)
|
